Expert answer:Read the articles and write a personal reflection
Expert answer:Please read the following articles and write a personal reflection on them (the word file has suggested questions and sources to use).Showing critical thinking, moving from experience to critical reflection on ideas and issues.- Approximately 3-4 pages, double spaced (about 700 words). – Make sure to use the proper citations (source).- No Plagiarism.Journals are a learning tool, a powerful way for you to clarify your own experiences and observations and connect them to new concepts. Journal is an opportunity to explore hunches, questions, and associations with less emphasis on meeting the polished standards of formal writing.Some starting points for personal responses & critical responses:- An example from my own experience of one of the key points here is…- Some questions raised for me are…- A quotation that is important for me is… because…- A new insight I had is…- A pattern I notice is…- It is ironic that…- Some things I didn’t understand are…- A point I particularly disagree with in this article / our discussion is… because…- I agree that… because…- One assumption that… makes is… evident in…- Some limitations and problems I see are…- This material is similar to or different from… because…Suggested questions:- What is (are) the main point(s) of the article? What are the key ideas?- What ideas were new / startling / changed your thinking about non-profit organizations?- What questions did the article raise for you – things that you want to understand or discuss?
3.docx
brock___promoting_voluntary_action_and_civil_society.pdf
evans___shields___nonprofit_engagement_with_policy.pdf
mule___advocacy_limitations_on_activist_organizations.pdf
smith.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Readings: Brock (pdf), DeSantis (pdf).
Recommended: Evans & Shields (2014, pdf).
More on the issue of advocacy: Woolford & Curran, Mule
Some questions for the journal:
1. What does it mean to be a volunteer? Who volunteers, and why?
2. How important are volunteers to our way of life?
3. Do we differ from other countries (such as the U.S. or Europe the developing
world)?
4. To what extent should federal and provincial governments compel or encourage
citizens or corporations to participate in and support the voluntary sector?
5. What is the role of nonprofit organizations in contributing to the development of
social policy?
6. What are some implications of limiting the advocacy activities of nonprofit
organizations?
DeSantis link:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2013.12043.x/pdf
Advocacy Issue
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/revenue-canada-targets-birdwatchers-for-politicalactivity-1.2799546
Woolford & Curran
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0261018311415571
ARTICLE
PROMOTING
VOLUNTARY ACTION
AND CIVIL
SOCIETY THROUGH
THE STATE
RÉSUMÉ ❿ On presse les gouvernements de promouvoir le
ABSTRACT ❿ Governments are under pressure to promote
bénévolat, mais devraient-ils agir comme animateurs de la société
volunteer activity, but should governments act as animators of civil
civile ou plutôt adopter un rôle plus actif et imposer le bénévolat
society or adopt a stronger role, compelling action on the part of
tant chez les citoyens qu’au sein des entreprises ? Comment leurs
citizens and corporations? How do the roles complement or
rôles se complètent-ils ou se contrarient-ils ? Le bénévolat exigé par
contradict each other? Does volunteer activity mandated by the
l’État sape-t-il la nature même du bénévolat ou contrarie-t-il les
State undercut the very nature of voluntary action or thwart the
objectifs mêmes qu’il devrait atteindre ? Le présent article examine
very objectives it is intended to achieve? This article looks at
plusieurs cas où les gouvernements du Canada et de l’Ontario
specific examples in which the Canadian and Ontario governments
agissent soit pour favoriser le bénévolat soit pour l’imposer, et
have acted as enablers and enforcers of volunteer activity,
évalue les avantages et les échecs de ces programmes face à leurs
assessing the merits and drawbacks of these programs in achieving
objectifs. L’article se termine par une brève évaluation : les
their objectives. It concludes with a short evaluation of when
gouvernements devraient-ils faciliter ou imposer le bénévolat ?
governments should act in an enforcing or enabling capacity.
Contrairement à la croyance populaire, le bénévolat obligé peut
Contrary to popular wisdom, enforced voluntarism may be more
donner de meilleurs résultats avec les entreprises qu’avec le
successful with corporations than at the citizen level, particularly if
citoyen, surtout s’il s’inscrit dans un contexte global. À mesure que
it is pursued in the global context. As governments become more
les gouvernements s’impliquent de plus en plus dans la promotion
involved in promoting volunteer activities, they should be careful
du bénévolat, il leur faut veiller à ce que des actions bien
that well-intended actions do not inadvertently contribute to a
intentionnées ne contribuent pas par ailleurs à détériorer le tissu
deterioration of the social fabric.
social. (Traduction : www.isuma.net)
isuma
53
ILLUSTRATION: NORMAND COUSINEAU
BY KATHY L. BROCK
promoting voluntary action and civil society through the state
T
he contraction of the State
has caused the role of societal
organizations in the public
policy process to become a matter of
debate and concern. As governments
expect more of the third sector in
servicing society and in maintaining
the social fabric, the twin issues of the
state of the voluntary sector and the
obligations of government to that
sector have emerged in this debate.1
Civil society under siege,
governments under pressure
Why have these two issues emerged in
policy debates now? First, recent studies have documented the benefits of a
vibrant civil society and citizen participation in organized and informal
activities. High levels of voluntary
activity promote a general sense of
social responsibility, build social ties
and contribute to a healthy society.2
Governments have a stake in promoting this civic awareness through
voluntarism.
Second, recent studies have
recorded a sharp decline in voluntary
activity and the sense of social responsibility on the part of citizens. In
Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam offers
a compelling account of the withdrawal of citizens in the United States
from political, social and religious
organizations with negative consequences for the health of the individual and society alike. Although the
evidence is somewhat more mixed in
Canada, there are some signs that the
number of people volunteering and
the amount of time they give is beginning to decline, particularly among
youth.3 Given that volunteer activities
early in life promote civic engagement
at all levels later in life, this perceived
trend bodes ill for the future of civil
society and democratic life.
Third, the blurring of lines between
the government, non-profit and corporate sectors has caused commentators
to question the relationship among the
three sectors and to suspect that
corporations may not be sharing the
burden of building a healthy society.
As the disparity between corporate
statements about public responsibility
and corporate decisions is documented, the pressure on governments
54
to encourage a sense of corporate
social responsibility increases.
International bodies have responded
by investigating ways of ensuring
corporate responsibility for civil, political, economic, social and cultural
rights and environmental standards.4
In Canada and the United States,
governments have considered options
such as tax measures, codes of ethics,
social audits, partnering and legislation
and encouraged partnerships between
corporations and community organizations. The question becomes: To
what extent should the federal and
provincial governments compel or
encourage corporations to support and
reinvigorate the third sector?
These three sets of concerns have
induced governments to adopt a more
active posture toward civil society.
There are two basic attitudes that
governments might assume if they are
to attempt to invigorate civil society
and its institutions. One option is for
governments to serve as enablers of
civil society, offering incentives for
citizens or corporations to become
involved in charitable activities.
Government inducements could
include tax incentives, subsidies to
charities and local citizen organizations, the creation of agencies to
provide social services and the establishment of volunteer programs.
Governments could promote knowledge about the sector and facilitate the
transfer of information within the
sector. They could also sponsor and
provide support for partnerships
between the private sector and nonprofit organizations that are to their
mutual benefit or offer tax relief for
employee volunteer programs. These
actions encourage or inspire citizens
to give of themselves and their time
but allow the choice to rest with the
individual or organization.
A second option for governments is
to require voluntary activity on behalf
of particular citizen groups or corporations. “Enforced voluntarism”
could entail legislation which directs
citizens that they must serve the
community in particular contexts or
which requires social activity on the
part of corporations. The former type
of legislation could include mandated
volunteer work of prisoners or
students, for example. The latter
might include legislation requiring
social audits or outlining tax penalties
where a corporation fails to conform
to certain standards or values. The
critical point is that these measures
mandate participation in what are
often thought to be voluntary activities. Choice is removed. Both approaches are being used in Canada.
Canada and Ontario take action
In an effort to eliminate public
deficits, many governments have
devolved services and programs previously offered by the public sector to
the private and non-profit sectors. As
governments have become more
enmeshed with the voluntary sector in
the delivery of services, as civic trust
has declined, and as the strains on the
sector have become more pronounced, governments and organizations
have turned their attention to building the capacity of the sector and promoting voluntarism in Canada. Three
examples of government action are
explored here: the initiative being
jointly developed by the federal government and voluntary sector organizations; community service in the
Ontario schools; and corporate voluntarism. Each is meant to strengthen the voluntary sector and enrich
democracy. The first provides an
example of the federal government
acting as enabler. The second example illustrates the role of the Ontario
government as enforcer. In the third
case, action is only being contemplated and may involve the federal government acting as either an enforcer
or enabler of voluntary activity.
The Voluntary Sector Initiative 5
The Canadian government has been
at the forefront of the move to build
capacity within the third sector and to
encourage a spirit of voluntarism
among Canadians. Most prominent is
the recent initiative, undertaken jointly with voluntary sector organizations, to develop a strategy to reconstruct the relationship between the
federal government and the community. In June 2000, the federal government committed $94.6 million to
Summer • Été 2001
promoting voluntary action and civil society through the state
the Voluntary Sector Initiative (vsi)
five-year plan with the objective of
improving service delivery and government programs through increased
support to the sector and increasing
the capacity of the sector to meet
demands placed on it. The vsi will
advise on relationship-building measures including the development of an
accord between government and the
sector ($10 million); capacity-building measures ($25 million, of which
$10 million is earmarked for information generation and Internet use in
the sector), a triennial national survey
of giving, volunteering and participating as well as specific measures to
recruit and train volunteers and staff;
and regulatory measures ($7 million)
including fairer and more transparent
registration of charities, the examination of models for the reform of regulatory institutions and of the restrictions on advocacy within the sector.
The government has allocated $30
million to examine means of involving the voluntary sector more effectively in the development of government policies and programs.
Structured to ensure efficacy, the
vsi is under the stewardship of the
Reference Group of Cabinet Ministers
selected by the Prime Minister and
chaired by the President of the
Treasury Board. This group will coordinate government activities with
respect to the voluntary sector and
advance the dialogue with the sector.
A Senior Steering committee composed of members of the Voluntary
Sector Roundtable and other voluntary organizations is the sector’s counterpart to the Reference Group. The
co-ordinating body for the vsi
comprises 16 members, eight being
senior officials from the federal
government and eight selected by an
independent committee of sector
representatives in an open process.
This committee acts as a liaison and
managing body by overseeing the
public consultation process, providing
feedback to the government and
voluntary sector, and by assisting
government departments, the sector
and the Joint Tables in harmonizing
their efforts. Two broad purpose joint
tables (working groups with co-chairs
isuma
Recent studies document a sharp
decline in voluntary activity and
the sense of social responsibility
on the part of citizens.
and members drawn equally from
government and the sector) ensure
maximum collaboration on issues
relating to capacity and regulation.
Project-specific joint tables advise on
matters such as the development of
the accord, the National Voluntarism
Initiative, information technology and
others as needed. To ensure inclusiveness, individual volunteers, smaller
organizations and other stakeholders
and citizens can engage in the
dialogue on the relationship through a
Web site and phone line.
For the first time in Canadian
history, the Canadian government is
reaching beyond the department level
of interaction to engage the voluntary
sector community at a more strategic
level. While the two sides are not
quite equals in the vsi ( the government retains primary control over
areas such as the functioning of the
Reference Group of Ministers and the
development of legislation ( the vsi
enables the voluntary sector to affect
substantively policy development and
government design. Whether the vsi
will be an effective vehicle for reform
rests in part on the continuing
commitment of the federal government and on the possible future
involvement of provincial governments. At this stage, the provinces are
being kept informed but are not officially involved, and the ability of the
federal government to redefine the
relationship is restricted by its limited
constitutional authority for the sector.
In this process, the federal government is acting as an enabler. It is
providing the support and means for
the voluntary sector to become
involved in a redefinition of the relationship. However, it also is building
the capacity of the sector through
facilitating the use of technology,
generating and transmitting information on the sector and issues within it,
helping to recruit and train people
through university programs as well
as internships, and enhancing
accountability mechanisms. In turn,
this will build a more robust sector
that can reinforce social trust, social
networks and common values, and
provide support to individuals and a
sense of common purpose for citizens.
This approach also helps the sector to
meet the challenges of the 21st
century including globalization, technological changes and the importance
of social capital (the capacity and willingness of people to engage in collective, civic activities) to overall
prosperity, and to respond to public
expectations that the public, private
and voluntary sector should work
more collaboratively on increasingly
complex social and economic issues.6
Although the government retains
control over the implementation and
legislative definition of suggested
reforms, the sector is empowered by
55
promoting voluntary action and civil society through the state
the process and retains control over
the nature of its participation.
Community service
The Ontario government has also
realized the importance of building
capacity within the third sector in
recent years. In Sustaining a Civic
Society (1997), the Premier’s Advisory
Board on the Voluntary Sector
advised the government to take a
more active role in promoting and
supporting the voluntary sector within the province. Among its key recommendations were the construction
of a new relationship with the voluntary sector through public forums
where the sector’s concerns could be
heard; the creation of a round table
with representatives from government, the sector and other stakeholders; the appointment of a minister
responsible for voluntary action; the
provision of support to the sector
through a community-driven fund,
strategic funding decisions and legislative initiatives; and the augmentation of the volunteer force through tax
incentives to encourage employers to
enable workers to volunteer as part of
their jobs and through revisions to the
school curriculum to impart the value of voluntary action to youth.
The provincial government
responded with a series of enabling
measures.7 These include the Premier’s
Roundtable on Voluntary Action
(1998); the Ontario Voluntary Forum
to consult with the community leaders
on five key themes for the future of
the sector (1998); Volunteer Action
online to help volunteer organizations
use technology more effectively;
recognition of volunteer work
through Volunteer Service Awards; a
screening initiative for volunteers to
ensure the safety of vulnerable recipients of services; and $100 million in
annual funding to eligible Ontario
charities and not-for-profit groups for
community and province-wide projects. However, the more dominant
view of the provincial government is
as one of enforcer owing to two
recent, controversial measures.
The Ontario government has mandated voluntarism in the secondary
school system in two ways. First, the
proposed Education Accountability
Act sets province-wide standards for
instructional time in secondary
schools, provides greater accountability to parents and taxpayers, ensures
the provision of co-instructional activities, and reduces average class sizes.
The Act provides government with
Governments and organizations
have turned their attention to
building the capacity of the sector
and promoting voluntarism
in Canada.
56
the authority to force teachers to
supervise extracurricular student
activities as part of their regular
duties. The government justified the
Act as necessary for increasing the
quality of the student experience in
light of the recent refusal of teachers
to continue full voluntary participation in these activities as a means of
protesting government reforms
increasing instructional time. The
measure extends teachers’ responsibilities to include a former volunteer
activity without extra remuneration
— enforced voluntarism. Teachers
have been publicly protesting the measure as draconian.8 In January 2001,
the Minister of Education took a step
toward requiring this activity by
teachers when she announced the
appointment of a five-member advisory group to recommend measures
to ensure Ontario students have
improved access to these co-instructional activities.
Second, and more significantly, the
government responded to the 1994
Royal Commission on Learning and
the 1997 Premier’s Advisory Board by
introducing a requirement in the curriculum for students to volunteer. The
Royal Commission emphasized the
place of schools within the community and the need to create stronger linkages between schools and community
organizations and residents. The
Advisory Board recommended that
the provincial govern ment introduce
Voluntary Action Learning into the
schools through means such as a compulsory course credit with an experiential learning component, an optional course, curriculum components and
professional development for teachers
on volunteer action learning.
Voluntary action (community service) learning became part of the
provincial secondary school curriculum reforms.9 Since1999, students now
must complete 40 hours of community involvement activities as part of the
requirements for graduation from high
school. Students may choose their own
activities according to school guidelines and must track their own activities. Upon completion of the requirement, students submit a form signed
by one parent and the sponsor or
Summer • Été 2001
promoting voluntary action and civil society through the state
supervisor of the activity. According to
the guidelines, “The purpose of the
community involvement requirement
is to encourage students to develop
awareness and understanding of civic
responsibility and of the role they can
play and the contributions they can
make in supporting and strengthening
their communities.” Speaking to the
Ontario legislature in November 1999,
the Minister of Education emphasized
that the purpose of mandatory community involvement is to promote
good citizenship but that it also helps
students to learn about career choices
and establish connections for future
employment. The program blends
altruism with self-interest.
Through these measures, …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades